...the book "Lila" by Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". In that book he discusses the distinction between "static" quality and "dynamic" quality. If one goes to listen to a singer, for example, and he or she sings only the same familiar songs, then while you might enjoy yourself somewhat, you'd also have the nagging feeling that something was missing. This is because the experience was all static: there was no _dynamic_ element. Thus if I went to see the movie "The Hobbit", and every scene followed exactly from the book, then I would definitely feel that something was missing. For me, some of the most impressive scenes in the LOTR films were those in which the writers used their creativity to imagine things that were only alluded to in the books, or that happened offstage: Gandalf's fall with the Balrog, Boromir's death, Arwen and Aragorn. Of course, there were times when it didn't work, but that's the risk you take in being dynamic, just as the singer takes a risk when she sings a new song that the fans haven't heard before. In adapting Tolkien to the screen, the source material virtually has to be modified; if you tried to film The Lord of The Rings page by page, it would just be a boring mess. Would you really want to film Frodo sitting around Bag End for two or three weeks, as Tolkien wrote, before departing on the quest? No, you would write the scene as Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens did: this is urgent, dangerous, and Frodo has to leave immediately.

Thus I'm really looking forward to seeing the dynamic additions to The Hobbit: the White Council, Tauriel, Radagast, the history of Dale. I have a feeling that they will be my favorite moments from the films. Don't mess with my favorite female elf.